I had some meh moments in elementary school. Middle school was mixed. 7th grade I was actually pretty good. I remember getting numbers in my year book. 8th grade I became basically unhinged. I think most people do during middle school at some point.
By sophomore year I was pretty normal again. I went to all but freshman homecoming. Dates for sophomore and senior year.
I think after 8th grade I some how escaped being bullied and such. Getting marked crazy and fearless I guess did that. I still didn't date much but that was my own fault not the ladies.
Ahh a good story of Mazzy being witless with ladies. Thank god Mazzxx is super upfront.
So I took C++ and Java between Sophomore and Junior year of high school. In my Java class was a girl named J who I went to high school with. Also Asian, seriously world you want that preference set in early didn't you? J was a geek. We got along well but I never thought to date her because she was weird J. She was an odd ball and being a high school kid that meant I overrode my interest for social standing or whatever bullshit it was saying.
But one time we were in the hall just hanging out. And we were just talking and J looked at me, with our other friends around too, "You masturbate right? I know we all do. How often do you masturbate? I am like a few times a week."
Ahh high school.
She also got like super buff. It was neat running into her later. She was kind of bad ass.
My high school years were also absolutely the 90's Movie-est. Even after the Epic Highschool Beatdown, the cops showed up (because it was the 90's).
But yeah, I was in a punk band, ended up with dreadlocks after highschool, yadda.
My high school reunion was fuckin dope though. All those people I thought hated me back then? Nah, it was like the best greeting and the warmest feeling.
Then I totally smanged a hippy chick that night.
Fuck, yeah, my life actually IS absurd
Oh, also, I just talked to Important Things Girl, and we're on for thursday
My nine year old now has a few rooms, a character that follows the mouse, collision, and has made the sprites for some enemies in his game he is making.
He was also earlier not listening to anything I asked him to do and generally being a butt.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Current project:
I don’t have any children. Let’s suppose that I never have any, and hence that no children of mine ever exist. Does it make sense to think of those never-existing children as having missed out on life, to think of them as having been deprived of something as a result of my choice not to have them? A common answer is: of course not. Although the death of an already-existing person may be a tragedy for the one who dies, failing to be born is no tragedy for the one who fails to be born. Strictly speaking, it is not even correct to say that there was someone--an individual--who failed to be born. The very nature of the harm we are attempting to attribute guarantees that there can be no valid subject for its attribution. Furthermore, one might continue, this realization does important ethical work. If it is impossible to be harmed by not being born, then it may be that I harm no one when I decline to reproduce. If I am harming no one, I may be wronging no one--and this even under the supposition that I easily could have had children, had I set my mind to it, and that had I done so they would have gone on to live excellent lives. And this conclusion may be quite compelling, especially so to those among us with no particular interest in procreation, let alone procreation on the scale one suspects might be required if the hypothetical harm we are considering turned out to not only be cogent but to be similar in magnitude to the harm of having an already-there life taken away.
So there is an interesting nexus of practical-metaphysical thought here; it posits a sharp metaphysical distinction between the ever-existing and the never-existing, and in so doing offers the basis for further, attractive, ethical distinctions in our obligations with respect to bringing new lives into existence. Unfortunately, however lovely this package may be, I do not believe it survives scrutiny. This because I don’t believe the distinction between the ever-existing and the never-existing is sharp, or, at least, I don’t believe it’s sharp in the way that would be required for it to block the attribution of harm to those who, in virtue of never being born, thereby miss out on the lives they otherwise could have had. My argumentative strategy is as follows. First, I note that throughout our lives we go through regular periods of unconsciousness, i.e. we sleep, and that for at least some of our slumber we fail to exhibit the characteristics that ordinarily ground our status as objects susceptible to benefit and harm. Yet we still feel qualified to judge, of a sleeping person, that it would harm them were they, speaking loosely, to fail to reenter existence—that is, we feel qualified to judge that it would harm a sleeping person were they to never wake up. I argue that the intelligibility of this behavior, once properly understood, is already sufficient to secure the same when it comes to those who never ‘wake up’ in the first place, that is to say, those who are never born. Now, in arguing this I will not argue that those who are asleep literally fail to exist, nor that those who never exist are literally asleep. The second of those claims (though perhaps not the first) is absurd when taken literally. Nonetheless, it is not a bad way to summarize my conclusions to say that though language may be figurative it is not misleading.
I've written versions of this paper several times and the main problem is that everyone thinks it's stupid BUT I'M STILL TRYING
I am unable to provide a selfie. As I'm highly against linking my face to this handle.. in the cyber but I'll be a SoPAX, maybe?, in January, if work doesnt declare another state of emergency.
Let me tell you about a little lifehack called gaining 60 pounds and being unrecognizable to yourself
Google AI would still be able to build a strong association; currently the association between me and this handle/forum, while it exists is at a low/medium confidence - I'd like to keep it that way because while I don't mind on a personal level, I do mind if my employer (current or future) finds me and my posts. I've deemed this place my 'safe-ish' space for just not giving any damns and posting about various things up to and including butts (opinions I have on products and development methods for things I actually make).
Basically, butts, man, butts
Let me tell you about another little lifehack for disappearing from online search results:
Change your name to Joseph Stalin
@Grape Ape - I'm not concerned with the public search option. :bzz: I'm also a bit over zealous about certain things (that I still don't protect very well because lol, i'm dumb).
I mean some company goes all joe mccarthy on me, my bored google searches alone are enough to screw me.
On a more philosophical note, I believe that most everyone has something that, while not necessarily damning, would be uncomfortable to have brought up as an ambush. It's practically a trope.
My nine year old now has a few rooms, a character that follows the mouse, collision, and has made the sprites for some enemies in his game he is making.
He was also earlier not listening to anything I asked him to do and generally being a butt.
The new Doom is bananas. It absolutely makes you want to just run in and start blasting motherfuckers, regardless of the situation.
And more or less rewards you for doing it.
It's great. Good shooting. Good movement tech. Just about the right level of hard. Kinda character building stuff that doesn't get too annoying or grindy.
It's pretty tits. Just about exactly what a doom remake should be.
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I don’t have any children. Let’s suppose that I never have any, and hence that no children of mine ever exist. Does it make sense to think of those never-existing children as having missed out on life, to think of them as having been deprived of something as a result of my choice not to have them? A common answer is: of course not. Although the death of an already-existing person may be a tragedy for the one who dies, failing to be born is no tragedy for the one who fails to be born. Strictly speaking, it is not even correct to say that there was someone--an individual--who failed to be born. The very nature of the harm we are attempting to attribute guarantees that there can be no valid subject for its attribution. Furthermore, one might continue, this realization does important ethical work. If it is impossible to be harmed by not being born, then it may be that I harm no one when I decline to reproduce. If I am harming no one, I may be wronging no one--and this even under the supposition that I easily could have had children, had I set my mind to it, and that had I done so they would have gone on to live excellent lives. And this conclusion may be quite compelling, especially so to those among us with no particular interest in procreation, let alone procreation on the scale one suspects might be required if the hypothetical harm we are considering turned out to not only be cogent but to be similar in magnitude to the harm of having an already-there life taken away.
So there is an interesting nexus of practical-metaphysical thought here; it posits a sharp metaphysical distinction between the ever-existing and the never-existing, and in so doing offers the basis for further, attractive, ethical distinctions in our obligations with respect to bringing new lives into existence. Unfortunately, however lovely this package may be, I do not believe it survives scrutiny. This because I don’t believe the distinction between the ever-existing and the never-existing is sharp, or, at least, I don’t believe it’s sharp in the way that would be required for it to block the attribution of harm to those who, in virtue of never being born, thereby miss out on the lives they otherwise could have had. My argumentative strategy is as follows. First, I note that throughout our lives we go through regular periods of unconsciousness, i.e. we sleep, and that for at least some of our slumber we fail to exhibit the characteristics that ordinarily ground our status as objects susceptible to benefit and harm. Yet we still feel qualified to judge, of a sleeping person, that it would harm them were they, speaking loosely, to fail to reenter existence—that is, we feel qualified to judge that it would harm a sleeping person were they to never wake up. I argue that the intelligibility of this behavior, once properly understood, is already sufficient to secure the same when it comes to those who never ‘wake up’ in the first place, that is to say, those who are never born. Now, in arguing this I will not argue that those who are asleep literally fail to exist, nor that those who never exist are literally asleep. The second of those claims (though perhaps not the first) is absurd when taken literally. Nonetheless, it is not a bad way to summarize my conclusions to say that though language may be figurative it is not misleading.
I've written versions of this paper several times and the main problem is that everyone thinks it's stupid BUT I'M STILL TRYING
*flails*
Apothe0sis rockrnger LoserForHireX
This seems very not stupid to me, but it runs headlong into all the questions of identity and consciousness and continuity
You should also add:
What if we set up a matter teleporter inside a woman's womb?
I don’t have any children. Let’s suppose that I never have any, and hence that no children of mine ever exist. Does it make sense to think of those never-existing children as having missed out on life, to think of them as having been deprived of something as a result of my choice not to have them? A common answer is: of course not. Although the death of an already-existing person may be a tragedy for the one who dies, failing to be born is no tragedy for the one who fails to be born. Strictly speaking, it is not even correct to say that there was someone--an individual--who failed to be born. The very nature of the harm we are attempting to attribute guarantees that there can be no valid subject for its attribution. Furthermore, one might continue, this realization does important ethical work. If it is impossible to be harmed by not being born, then it may be that I harm no one when I decline to reproduce. If I am harming no one, I may be wronging no one--and this even under the supposition that I easily could have had children, had I set my mind to it, and that had I done so they would have gone on to live excellent lives. And this conclusion may be quite compelling, especially so to those among us with no particular interest in procreation, let alone procreation on the scale one suspects might be required if the hypothetical harm we are considering turned out to not only be cogent but to be similar in magnitude to the harm of having an already-there life taken away.
So there is an interesting nexus of practical-metaphysical thought here; it posits a sharp metaphysical distinction between the ever-existing and the never-existing, and in so doing offers the basis for further, attractive, ethical distinctions in our obligations with respect to bringing new lives into existence. Unfortunately, however lovely this package may be, I do not believe it survives scrutiny. This because I don’t believe the distinction between the ever-existing and the never-existing is sharp, or, at least, I don’t believe it’s sharp in the way that would be required for it to block the attribution of harm to those who, in virtue of never being born, thereby miss out on the lives they otherwise could have had. My argumentative strategy is as follows. First, I note that throughout our lives we go through regular periods of unconsciousness, i.e. we sleep, and that for at least some of our slumber we fail to exhibit the characteristics that ordinarily ground our status as objects susceptible to benefit and harm. Yet we still feel qualified to judge, of a sleeping person, that it would harm them were they, speaking loosely, to fail to reenter existence—that is, we feel qualified to judge that it would harm a sleeping person were they to never wake up. I argue that the intelligibility of this behavior, once properly understood, is already sufficient to secure the same when it comes to those who never ‘wake up’ in the first place, that is to say, those who are never born. Now, in arguing this I will not argue that those who are asleep literally fail to exist, nor that those who never exist are literally asleep. The second of those claims (though perhaps not the first) is absurd when taken literally. Nonetheless, it is not a bad way to summarize my conclusions to say that though language may be figurative it is not misleading.
I've written versions of this paper several times and the main problem is that everyone thinks it's stupid BUT I'M STILL TRYING
*flails*
Apothe0sis rockrnger LoserForHireX
This seems very not stupid to me, but it runs headlong into all the questions of identity and consciousness and continuity
You should also add:
What if we set up a matter teleporter inside a woman's womb?
Posts
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
By sophomore year I was pretty normal again. I went to all but freshman homecoming. Dates for sophomore and senior year.
I think after 8th grade I some how escaped being bullied and such. Getting marked crazy and fearless I guess did that. I still didn't date much but that was my own fault not the ladies.
Ahh a good story of Mazzy being witless with ladies. Thank god Mazzxx is super upfront.
So I took C++ and Java between Sophomore and Junior year of high school. In my Java class was a girl named J who I went to high school with. Also Asian, seriously world you want that preference set in early didn't you? J was a geek. We got along well but I never thought to date her because she was weird J. She was an odd ball and being a high school kid that meant I overrode my interest for social standing or whatever bullshit it was saying.
But one time we were in the hall just hanging out. And we were just talking and J looked at me, with our other friends around too, "You masturbate right? I know we all do. How often do you masturbate? I am like a few times a week."
Ahh high school.
She also got like super buff. It was neat running into her later. She was kind of bad ass.
My high school years were also absolutely the 90's Movie-est. Even after the Epic Highschool Beatdown, the cops showed up (because it was the 90's).
But yeah, I was in a punk band, ended up with dreadlocks after highschool, yadda.
My high school reunion was fuckin dope though. All those people I thought hated me back then? Nah, it was like the best greeting and the warmest feeling.
Then I totally smanged a hippy chick that night.
Fuck, yeah, my life actually IS absurd
Oh, also, I just talked to Important Things Girl, and we're on for thursday
I have... literally no idea how to exist.
I. Can't. Even.
We got all dressed up and went to a nice restaurant and then we went and danced for hours and hours and then I drove everyone home in my van. The end.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Man I use to play stepmania for hours on end.
I actually did ddr competitions in college. I wasn't the top end my roommates were though.
But the whole ddr/beatmania and such games tend to attract similar people.
He was also earlier not listening to anything I asked him to do and generally being a butt.
So there is an interesting nexus of practical-metaphysical thought here; it posits a sharp metaphysical distinction between the ever-existing and the never-existing, and in so doing offers the basis for further, attractive, ethical distinctions in our obligations with respect to bringing new lives into existence. Unfortunately, however lovely this package may be, I do not believe it survives scrutiny. This because I don’t believe the distinction between the ever-existing and the never-existing is sharp, or, at least, I don’t believe it’s sharp in the way that would be required for it to block the attribution of harm to those who, in virtue of never being born, thereby miss out on the lives they otherwise could have had. My argumentative strategy is as follows. First, I note that throughout our lives we go through regular periods of unconsciousness, i.e. we sleep, and that for at least some of our slumber we fail to exhibit the characteristics that ordinarily ground our status as objects susceptible to benefit and harm. Yet we still feel qualified to judge, of a sleeping person, that it would harm them were they, speaking loosely, to fail to reenter existence—that is, we feel qualified to judge that it would harm a sleeping person were they to never wake up. I argue that the intelligibility of this behavior, once properly understood, is already sufficient to secure the same when it comes to those who never ‘wake up’ in the first place, that is to say, those who are never born. Now, in arguing this I will not argue that those who are asleep literally fail to exist, nor that those who never exist are literally asleep. The second of those claims (though perhaps not the first) is absurd when taken literally. Nonetheless, it is not a bad way to summarize my conclusions to say that though language may be figurative it is not misleading.
I've written versions of this paper several times and the main problem is that everyone thinks it's stupid BUT I'M STILL TRYING
*flails*
@Apothe0sis @rockrnger @LoserForHireX
I mean some company goes all joe mccarthy on me, my bored google searches alone are enough to screw me.
On a more philosophical note, I believe that most everyone has something that, while not necessarily damning, would be uncomfortable to have brought up as an ambush. It's practically a trope.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OLcAGbXhWIVcl5IziVpG0eKFJS3xi_Sac9kYMkRFvD8/edit?usp=sharing
The Pin, Tug, the burnout, Brad Bramish, or JGL?
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Your kid's a god now, navgoose.
Gods never listen to their parents.
You flew too close to the sun, my friend.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
I would post a thing on facebook. but then people I know in real life would know about things that make me feel things. That's probably a bad idea.
better not.
You spat blood on people?
That's a horned frog.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
This might be one of the worst things I've ever read
I'm shriveled like a raisin from the cringe
NNID: Hakkekage
Yes, but also i'd die if I wasn't home in my tanning bed before dark.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
d... Did you not slavishly watch OnTheLastCastle stream that game?
Fuckin... DOOM is BAE
Jesus.......
That's..... wow
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
@RiemannLives @Echo @Arch @Vanguard
-Muenster Cheese
-Extra Sharp Ceddar Cheese
-Pinot Noir
-Mochi Green Tea Ice Cream Balls
And more or less rewards you for doing it.
It's great. Good shooting. Good movement tech. Just about the right level of hard. Kinda character building stuff that doesn't get too annoying or grindy.
It's pretty tits. Just about exactly what a doom remake should be.
This seems very not stupid to me, but it runs headlong into all the questions of identity and consciousness and continuity
You should also add:
What if we set up a matter teleporter inside a woman's womb?
It is such a metal weapon.
Actually give me a chain axe.
I need one of you to say something very white.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OLcAGbXhWIVcl5IziVpG0eKFJS3xi_Sac9kYMkRFvD8/edit?usp=sharing
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
I did have a self-destructive tolerance for a self-destructive girlfriend, she didn't die or whatever
tho heroin was probably not involved
Well, gee officer, I didn't know I couldn't do that.
pew pew!
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OLcAGbXhWIVcl5IziVpG0eKFJS3xi_Sac9kYMkRFvD8/edit?usp=sharing
polarbear in a snowstorm
covering its nose
and closing its eyes
chain axe is more metal than chain sword
asi-asi, chica. y tu?
The cocktail party at the country club ran out of watercress sandwiches.
Some of my best friends are black.
Let's all do the macarana.